Sign the Petition

[Terri Schehr]

2 minutes ago, Stu said:

 

Ummmmm... which one of these scenarios is true?

Why is he videotaping? 

[Stu]

16 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

Why is he videotaping? 

The 'expectation of privacy' in a practice room or class room, if that is where it occurred, is a key; it leads me to believe that it may have been an area designated for students to change in and out if uniform. On the other hand, if it was in a locker room area, expectation is automatic and obvious. That is why I am asking MikeD and Brasso to resolve their contradiction of location.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Stu

[Liahona]

1 hour ago, MikeD said:

The court record does not say where the video was shot, but one of the posts on reddit mentioned that it was in a practice room. It wasn't a girls room, or locker room, or anyplace like that, at least from what was stated. The court document does not mention the locale.

I would not have an issue in a case like that. If it had been in a girls locker room, or girls bathroom, etc...I'd be with you. 

 

I remember reading this specific detail somewhere..the camera was in an area where kids frequently changed their clothes.

[BRASSO]

 There was a victim. She was a female. She was underage. He videotaped her secretly via a camcorder in the school's shower area without her knowledge, nor permission. She saw the camcorder's tiny light at a distant tiny opening, and thats what tipped her off. She made a victim's sworn testimony that was read at trial. He elected ( his legal right ) at Court not to take the witness stand in his defense.  The camcoder allegedly utilized in the crime was introduced into evidence by the prosecutors for the jurors to see and evaluate.. particularly its light component., and allegedly the defendants alleged strong, personal, familiarity with that particular camcoder. The female victim claimed she was was traumatized by the experience by this school employee, violating her privacy as well as her trust in this school employee according to the published court document with her sworn testimony.  The jury was  individually made by the judge ( custom ) to stand and individually give their verdict. The Jurors individually stood and expressed guilty or innocent of these charges to the presiding judge. The jurors verdict was unanimous.  The Judge in pre sentencing ordered the guilty party  to never contact her.. nor go onto school grounds.. He paid fines ( small amount.. few hundred dollars.. mostly court fees ). He was sentenced to 30 days jail time by the presiding judge, He was granted time served by the court, so his actual jail time was a bit less than the 30 days.. approx. 26 days or so.  He did not appeal his guilty verdict to another court. His Calif. teaching license was revoked by the Dept. of Teacher Certification for the State of Calif. This is all in the public record. After a few years of no additional violations, his attorney went back to court to expunge the guilty verdict, and his attorney secured this for him. His Guilty verdict under Calif Penal Laws was vacated.  This is all part of the public record too.. From reading his follow up remarks since he was initially found guilty by a Jury, he has publically commented to reporters that he never did what he initially was found guilty of doing by a judge and jury, and has never ( to my knowledge ) accepted any responsibility for what the victim and the States Prosecuting Attorneys alleges he did, and with what jurors  unanimously agreed with on, and  what the Teacher Certification Bureau in the State of Calif. decided on for him.. So thats a brief summary of this.

Edited November 2, 2017 by BRASSO

[skevinp]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Ummmmm... which one of these scenarios is true?

Brasso may have access to information others don't have, as he has said some things I haven't heard from anyone else.

[Stu]

13 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 There was a " victim ". She was a female. She was underage. He videotaped her secretly via a camcorder in the school's shower area without her knowledge, nor permission. She saw the camcorder's tiny light at a distance light, and thats what tipped her off. She made a victim's sworn testimony that was read at trial. He elected ( his legal right ) at Court not to take the witness stand in his defense. She was traumatized by the experience by this school employee, violating her privacy as well as her trust in this school emplyee according to the published court document with her sworn testimony.  The jury was  individually made by the judge ( custom ) to stand and individually give their verdict. The Decision made on his guilt of the charges by the Jury was unanimous. The Judge in pre sentencing ordered the guilty party  to never contact her again. he paid fines. He was sentenced to 30 days jail time, He vas granted time served by the court, so his actual jail time was a bit less than the 30 days.. approx. 26 days or so.  His Calif. teaching license was revoked by the Dept. of Teacher Certification for the State of Calif. This is all in the public record. Thats how we can self educate ourselves on this, avoiding any attempt at spin on either side of this.

In my opinion, video or photos in this manner are a form of rape and it attacks the dignity of the victim.

[Jeff Ream]

5 hours ago, garfield said:

If, if, if...look how many times you wrote it in just this response.  How is it possible that it becomes acceptable that we justify throwing a gas can on a currently-sensitive subject with so many unknowns to back up the contention?

OK, so you've identified that people wasting THEIR time making baseless accusations cost you nothing, but it absolutely costs DCI something.  It's DCI that, with little justification, has to invest precious time and energy addressing the baseless contentions of any rabble-rouser who decides to launch a can of gas at them.  It costs the activity, even if it means that the corps have to leave X amount of dollars in DCI and not for their use in order to address the baseless contentions.

Had the OP presented any actual facts in the diatribe that makes up his "petition", I would have given it more due.  But his/her M.O. is to only throw the gas can and expect others to clean up the mess.

 

 

 

for the record, the stuff on Reddit isn't baseless. it's public record

[Jeff Ream]

3 hours ago, MikeD said:

If you are talking about the case on reddit...

There was no 'plea'. The person was convicted of a misdemeanor. Not a sex offense, but rather attempting to video in an area where privacy is reasonably expected. So the punishment was fit to the verdict and the level of the charged offense.

Being a misdemeanor, it was eligible under California law to be expunged, and it was. 

The person now has NO record, and in fact passed multiple criminal checks before being hired.

I find this entire thread, the one on reddit, as well as the petition,  to be  a not-so-veiled attempt to attack Hopkins and YEA, using one of their staff as the weapon in the attack. Very sad.

BTW...I think there are 30-something signatures on the petition, at least earlier today that was the count...they are hoping to hit 100. Hardly enough to warrant DCI giving it any time at all, IMO.

There are sufficient real criminals committing real acts that need to be put away, IMO. 

 

 

 

 

 

ok so...a dude tried to video a place where minors would be exposed.

 

 

and you're ok with them teaching.

 

wow.

[skevinp]

Why do people keep using phrases  like "shower area" and "place where minors would be exposed"? Did he video her taking a shower or otherwise in a state of undress, or not?

[BRASSO]

11 minutes ago, skevinp said:

 Did he video her taking a shower or otherwise in a state of undress, 

 Jeez.. go read the court testimony.  Your answer(s) to any of the questions you might have can be found there. But for those who are too lazy to look these things up yourself regarding the female victim's written sworn ( under oath ) testimony in court on this guy, the simple answer to this is..... " yes" .... with a camcorder.

Edited November 2, 2017 by BRASSO